The TennBarU Teleseminar series offers you the chance to hear leading national experts discuss timely topics from the convenience of your
office or home. All TennBarU Teleseminars are broadcast via telephone at noon central time.

TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below.
All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password or need to obtain a password,
you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi

Here's how you can obtain full-text version. We recommend you download the Opinions to your computer and then
open them from there. Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This should give you the option to
download the original document. If not, you may need to right-click on the URL to get the option to save the file
to your computer. Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink. This option will allow you to view
and save a plain-text version of the opinion. Browse the Opinion List area of TBALink.
This option will allow you to download the original version of the opinion.

This appeal involves a dispute over the visitation rights of the maternal grandparents of four children. After the children‚s mother died, the relationship between their father and their maternal grandparents became strained. Eventually, the grandparents filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Smith County seeking to establish their right to visit their grandchildren. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition and prescribed visitation rights for the grandparents. The children‚s father has appealed. We have determined that the trial court misapplied the rebuttable presumption in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306(a)(5) (Supp. 2004) and, therefore, the order granting the visitation rights to the grandparents must be vacated.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/larsone101005.pdfROKETA MASON, A MINOR BY YOLANDA MASON, AS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER, AND YOLANDA MASON,INDIVIDUALLY v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE CORRECTED OPINION - ORIGINALLY ISSUED 10-3-2005

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

John L. Kennedy and Lora Barkenbus Fox, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, MetropolitanGovernment of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

Plaintiff, a tenth grade high school student, was attacked while riding the school bus. She wasseriously injured by another student using a razor provided by the school as part of the cosmetology curriculum. Plaintiff filed this action against the school system alleging negligencefor failure to properly supervise students using dangerous instructional instruments and for violation of the school‚s zero tolerance policy by permitting students to take razors to and fromschool, thereby permitting the attacker to have the razor on the school bus where the attack occurred. Following a bench trial, plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $80,000 from whichdefendant appeals. Finding the school system is not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing theaction.

This appeal involves a dispute arising from the sale of a used motorcycle. After discovering that the motorcycle was not new, the purchaser filed suit and then settled with the dealer from whom he had purchased the motorcycle. Later, the purchaser filed suit against the motorcycle‚s manufacturer in the Circuit Court for Davidson County alleging that the motorcycle‚s aluminum frame was defective. The trial court granted the manufacturer‚s summary judgment motion and dismissed the purchaser‚s products liability and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. The purchaser has appealed. We have determined that the manufacturer was entitled to a summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court.

Sara L. Hall, City Attorney, and Carmalita Carletos-Drayton, Assistant City Attorney, for theAppellant, City of Memphis.

Thomas E. Hansom, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jack Vincent.

Judge: FARMER

The City of Memphis terminated the employment of Jack Vincent, a police officer. The CivilService Commission reversed, and Memphis appealed to the Shelby County Chancery Court under a writ of certiorari. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the Commission, andMemphis appeals. We reverse.

This case involves the contest of a will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity. The Probate Court, Davidson County, found that the evidence failed to establish that the Testator lacked the requisite testamentary capacity to execute his will. We affirm.

Plaintiffs, certified low voltage electricians, filed a personal injury action against university for negligently informing them that university‚s switchgear cabinet was low voltage, when in fact, it was high voltage, for failing to provide a conspicuous high voltage warning sign on the high voltage switchgear and for obscuring the manufacturer‚s identifying product plate. Plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result of university‚s alleged negligence. The Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, Judge Walter C. Kurtz granted university‚s motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs appealed. The decision of the trial court is reversed and case remanded.

The petitioner, Erick Bailey, was found guilty of second degree murder and felony murder. His conviction of second degree murder was merged into his conviction of felony murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties‚ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, John E. Carter, appeals from the trial court's order construing his untitledpleading as one for writ of habeas corpus and denying relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rulesof the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trialcourt is affirmed.

In this post-conviction action the petitioner contends that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the effect his plea would have on his eligibility for rehabilitative programs and less restrictive forms of confinement during his federal sentence; and (2) his plea was involuntary and unknowing. Following our review, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise the petitioner of a collateral consequence of his plea and that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Wilson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Robert Louis Gibson, on one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion, which the prosecutor denied. On petition for writ of certiorari, the trial court affirmed the prosecutor‚s decision to deny pretrial diversion. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecutor abused his discretion in denying his application for pretrial diversion by improperly and unfairly weighing the factors used to determine whether diversion should be granted. Based upon our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant AttorneyGeneral; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney General; and James Walter Freeland, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: HAYES

The Appellant, Terrance B. Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief bythe Tipton County Circuit Court. In 1998, Smith was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he argues that he was denied the effective assistanceof counsel based upon: (1) trial counsel‚s conflicts in representing different interests at trial and (2) the denial of his fundamental right to testify. After review of the record, Smith‚s claim ofconflicts of interest is without merit; however, we conclude that Smith was denied his right to testify at trial. Nonetheless, after review, we find the error harmless. Accordingly, the judgmentof the post-conviction court is affirmed.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendants of conspiracy to possess with intent to sell more than seventy pounds of marijuana within one thousand feet of a school zone, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced each of them to fifteen years confinement at one hundred percent in the Department of Correction. The defendants appealed their convictions, with various defendants claiming that the evidence was insufficient, that the Tennessee Drug Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, that the state‚s continued reference to the defendants‚ ethnicity was overly prejudicial, that the state‚s introduction of evidence concerning the presence of weapons was irrelevant and overly prejudicial, and that the jury‚s verdict lacked unanimity. However, before oral argument, this court stayed the appellate proceedings based upon the defendants filing petitions for coram nobis relief in the trial court. The trial court thereafter granted the petitions for coram nobis relief and vacated the defendants‚ convictions, and the state now appeals, claiming the trial court improperly granted coram nobis relief to each defendant. In these consolidated cases, we affirm the trial court‚s coram nobis judgment as to the defendants Luis Vasquez and Victor Garza but reverse the judgment as to the other defendants. On direct appeal of the underlying convictions, we hold the trial court erred in not instructing the jury about facilitation but that the error did not affect a substantial right of Roberto Vasques, Luis D. Vidales Romero, Kevin Joel Hernandez, or Hector Alonzo, and we affirm their convictions.

The defendant, Lorenzo Bene Ware, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, class C felonies. The trial court denied the defendant‚s request for probation and sentenced him to serve concurrent terms of three years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. After considering the record and the relevant authorities, we conclude the defendant has waived this issue and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John L. Wright, was convicted of driving under the influence („DUIš), fifth offense, and of violating the implied consent law. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements the Defendant made to the police; (2) the trial court improperly concluded that the Defendant‚s arrest was lawful; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his DUI conviction. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!Feel free to forward this Opinion Flash on to anyone you know of with an e-mail address.

GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!See the instructions at the beginning of this edition of Opinion Flash.

JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION!While Opinion Flash is a free service of the Tennessee Bar Association, you must be a member of the Tennessee Bar Association in order to access the full text of the opinions or enjoy the many other features of
TBALink.

SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!Would you like to receive the TBALink Opinion Flash free each day by e-mail? Anyone, whether a TBA member or not, is welcome to subscribe ... it's free! Sign up for text or HTML version.